"Access to art" is a vague enough right that I'm not sure what I would be affirming or denying.

Like, if somebody is imprisoned and still has the right to access art the same way they have the right to food and water, does it satisfy that right to put a new painting in front of their face for a bit each week?

Or like, so long as a city has public art and a public access channel, does that fulfil its inhabitants' "right to access art?"

If we inadvertently come up with a better method of distribution than streaming that's free but still generates enough money to pay people i'm taking that shit to the bank.

To be more specific: Does it seem reasonable to think of art as something a person should only be able to access fully and freely if they have the money to do so?

I suppose my question was a bit vague. I think "freely and fully' are important words. Someone else choosing which art should be made available to the public doesn't feel like full or free access

But as LaBelle hinted at, even things like museums and public access television can be exclusive

Just say yes

Go on just do it

If we go a step further and actually outlaw the commoditization of art, perhaps it might more often be produced in furtherance of non-economic objectives.

#MakeArtGreatAgain

Even in a worst case scenario, untested superhero properties might get optioned?

Pitching to the choir.

It's the feeling that counts

Now here is a shining example of the kind of radical thinking I was hoping to encounter in this thread. This is certainly an aspect of the problematic existence of art as commodity that we've not yet considered. Fucken fuck yeah

Will the government start cracking down on sellers of handcrafted metalwork earrings and necklaces on Etsy?

I’d say that all depends on how we define art

Best to settle that in a different thread though

You saw my snipe and raised me a floodgates argument, huh?

This is war.

It's definitely a human need to express ones self. But I'm not so sure you can call consuming art a fundamental human right. It's a nice thing to have, and one that makes life better. And governments should put money into making it freely available to the population when possible. But the right to consume something someone else worked for without compensation or subsidization for their time and effort seems to not be on the same plane as something like food, shelter, medical care, etc.

As usual, i blame the rich

My belief is there is enough wealth in the world that every living being could live (and love!) comfortably in a world full of fantastic art, if only we could claw the resources away from the handful of greedy fux who’ve slowly but surely appropriated it from us over the millennia

Talking MAJOR redistribution of wealth, heavy, heavy taxation of all fuckers who dare to try living large

Also, once we all stopped fighting each other 40+ hrs/wk over the illusory trickle of a pittance of wages we’re allowed (to further the illusion we’re not just slaves, all) there’d be actual time for art (and sex and food and video games and guitaristry etc) if we could ffs agree to fucken share, for once

It's a complicated question. Their right to consume art freely given to the public or them is obviously reasonable. But can you force an artist to give up their art to someone who they don't want to have it? Is art 'out there' once it's out there and that's it?

well i mean yeah

There’s a grey area too...

I really like the voice of this one opera singer singing my favourite Gerald Finzi tune, and that particular performance is available free to all, at YouTube. But to see him perform in person, I think it’s ok to ask for a large attendance fee.

It’s when even YouTube access is restricted that I have a problem. So it’s not that I think all people should have completely unrestricted access to art, as a fundamental human right. But I believe there should be some guaranteed access to art that artists themselves choose to make freely available

A third party like YouTube should not be able to restrict access to that content, and only allow it to be shared, for a fee

True talk, there's quite a lot of basic needs that have to be met before we should worry about making art available to all.

Youtube is restrictive by it's very nature. It expects people to have access to computers and an internet connection.

True, but in terms of access it becomes less restrictive with every passing day

"human rights" are tricky. I certainly enjoy my privileges as an American citizen, but I often think the discourse surrounding them seems to assert them as some kind of transhistorical fact essential to the human condition, rather than as a specific social construct. I guess Jefferson gets to the heart of the matter when he claims "these truths to be self-evident," suggesting that they exist a priori. Which they don't, obviously, since the US founding documents had the need to assert them in the first place.

Thus, I think calls for social action based on appeal to "human rights" ironically runs the risk of taking our social contract for granted, rather than as something that must be constantly re-articulated and reaffirmed, and protected and fought for.

I'd argue tho that art actually IS a "transhistorical fact essential to the human condition." I don't think one can live a human life without encoutnering/participating in art. So I think your question is less about whether "art" is a human right," but moreso whether consuming certain forms of art in certain ways is a "human right."

To which I'd say no, I think we have more pressing social needs than making sure everyone can consume art in some certain way. Especially since so much art is free on the internet.

What about accessibility of content? Should artists make their art accessible to as wide a selection of people as possible as a norm?
Are pieces of art intended for very specific niche audiences intrinsically less valuable than those of mass appeal?

i wouldn’t consider accessibility the artist’s responsibility, nor are any considerations toward an audience the artist’s responsibility, unless they are part of the “problem” (in a philosophical sense) the artist is engaged in solving.

i tend to align with Kandinsky in that art should be created out of an “internal necessity.” if engagement with an audience is needed in order for the art to fulfill its purpose and satisfy that inner impulse, then the artist can decide the conditions in which others will experience it.

1. Should all art be available to all, or do we just need to make reasonable accommodations for people to access a decent amount of stuff in their area

2. Would it be enough for the government to ship a crying hobo clown painting to every household

Ok further clarification: I don’t think I really want to force anyone to do anything. But eliminating the ability of wealthy or well-represented individuals to punish people for accessing art in unapproved manners would probably be ok yeah?

I’m in the permission business

Yes. It’s why Radiohead is better than Smashing Pumpkins. Reiterating this fact has been the goal of this thread all along so thanks for getting us there